Mieczkowski v. Masco Corp.

• Decision Date: 18 March 1998
• Docket Number: No. 5:96CV286.,5:96CV286.
• Citation: 997 F.Supp. 782
• Parties: Dan MIECZKOWSKI and Marie Mieczkowski, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Ryan Mieczkowski, Deceased and as Representatives of the Heirs at Law of Ryan Mieczkowski v. MASCO CORPORATION, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

997 F.Supp. 782

Dan MIECZKOWSKI and Marie Mieczkowski, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Ryan Mieczkowski, Deceased and as Representatives of the Heirs at Law of Ryan Mieczkowski v. MASCO CORPORATION, et al.

No. 5:96CV286.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Texarkana Division.

March 18, 1998.

Christopher A. Payne, Craken & Harkey, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Nicholas H. Patton, Patton, Tidwell, Sandefur, a Paddock, Texarkana, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Preston McGee and Thomas E. Gibson, Potter, Minton, Roberts, Davis, a Jones, P.C., Tyler, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

FOLSOM, District Judge.

This action arises out of the unfortunate death of Ryan Mieczkowski on March 3, 1996. In 1982 Rose Furniture Company, which is domiciled in the State of North Carolina, sold a bunk bed to a Mr. and Mrs. Cascio. The Cascios had originally seen the bed in a Washington, D.C. store and had it delivered to their Virginia home. In July of 1994, the Cascios sold the bed to the plaintiffs in this case, Dan and Marie Mieczkowski. This sale took place in the State of North Carolina. The following year the Mieczkowskis moved with their three year old son. Ryan to Texas. On the night of March 2, 1996, Ryan was allowed to sleep on the top bunk of the bed for the very first time. The next morning, Ryan was found dead from asphyxiation apparently caused when he tried to climb down from the top bunk and became hung between the bed railing. The Mieczkowskis subsequently filed this products liability lawsuit which includes the Rose Furniture Company as a defendant. Rose has moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss this suit for want of personal jurisdiction.

I. APPLICABLE LAW OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case supported by sufficient facts to establish that jurisdiction is proper. Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644 (5th Cir.1994). When considering such a motion, the Court may consider affidavits, depositions, or any combination of recognized methods of discovery. Jobe v. ATR Marketing, Inc., 87 F.3d 751, 753 (5th Cir.1996).

To determine whether personal jurisdiction exists, the Court must apply a two-part inquiry. First, in a diversity action, the Court must decide whether a state's long arm statute permits the exercise of jurisdiction. See Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213, 215 (5th Cir.1990); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(e). Second, the Court must determine whether exercising jurisdiction would comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Ham v. La Cienega Music Co., 4 F.3d 413, 415 (5th Cir.1993). Because the Texas long arm statute allows for the exercise of personal jurisdiction whenever it is consistent with constitutional due process,¹ the Court need only look to the dictates of the United States Constitution to decide the jurisdictional issue. See Wilson, 20 F.3d at 647

The Supreme Court has determined that in the context of personal jurisdiction due process requires that: (1) a defendant have "minimum contacts" with the forum state; and (2) exercising personal jurisdiction does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Asahi Metal Indus. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92, (1987)(citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95, (1945)); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Wilson, 20 F.3d at 647; Polythane Systems v. Marina Ventures Intern., 993 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir.1993).

II. MINIMUM CONTACTS

The "minimum contacts" aspect of this analysis may be subdivided "into contacts that give rise to `specific' personal jurisdiction and those that give rise to `general' personal jurisdiction." Wilson, 20 F.3d at 647. Specific jurisdiction exists when the nonresident defendant's contacts with the forum state arise from, or are directly related to, the cause of action. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872 n. 8, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984); Wilson, 20 F.3d at 647. General jurisdiction exists when a defendant's contacts with the forum state are unrelated to the cause of action but are "continuous and systematic" and considered substantial. Hall, 466 U.S. at 414 n. 9. 104 S.Ct. at 1872 n. 9 (1984); Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 779 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 1481 n. 11, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984); Wilson, 20 F.3d at 647. Because the plaintiffs assert that both specific and general jurisdiction are present in this case, the Court will address each of these issues in turn.

A. Specific Jurisdiction

In products liability actions such as this, the Fifth Circuit follows the "stream of commerce" approach to determine whether specific jurisdiction is present. This approach was formulated in the landmark decision World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). In World-Wide Volkswagen, the Supreme Court held that when a defendant places products in the stream of commerce with knowledge that the products will be used in the forum state the minimum contacts requirement is satisfied. World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 298, 100 S.Ct. at 567. The Fifth Circuit has interpreted this case to hold that "mere foreseeability or awareness [is] a constitutionally sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction if the defendant's product made its way into the forum state while still in the stream of commerce." See Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 9 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir.1993) (citations omitted).

The plaintiffs seek to utilize the above outlined approach to establish specific jurisdiction in this case. However, the plaintiffs fail to establish a prima facie case on this particular issue, because they have not put forth any evidence that tends to show that it was foreseeable that the bed in question would make its way to Texas while in the stream of commerce. See generally Bean Dredging Corp. v. Dredge Technology Corp., 744 F.2d 1081 (5th Cir.1984)(defendant company's president testified that product could foreseeably make its way into specific state). Because the defendant has put forth such evidence on this issue via the Affidavit of Rose employee Larry King², the Court must conclude that this test has not been satisfied. See Wenz v. Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503, 1505 (10th Cir.1995)(only uncontroverted facts as distinguished from conclusory allegations, must be accepted as true); see also Bullion, 895 F.2d at 217. Therefore, specific jurisdiction is not present in this case.

B. General Jurisdiction

As stated above, general jurisdiction will only be found where a defendant's contacts with the forum state are "continuous and systematic." In general, this requires a greater amount of contact with the forum state than would be required to sustain a finding of specific jurisdiction. Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370, 374 (5th Cir.1987).

The seminal case dealing with the concept of general jurisdiction is Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952). In Perkins, the Supreme Court held that a Philippine mining corporation that maintained its general business operations in Ohio during World War II had continuous and systematic contacts with Ohio. The president of the corporation maintained his office in Ohio. Company files were kept in the state. Corporate correspondence originated from Ohio. Finally, board meetings were held in Ohio.

In addition, the Supreme Court in Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, supra, held that the defendant's contacts with Texas were insufficient to sustain general jurisdiction. This was so even in light of the fact that the defendant had purchased helicopters, negotiated contracts, and trained pilots in Texas.

The defendant maintains that this case clearly falls within the confines of the Perkins and Hall decisions. In support of its position, the defendant points to various facts which include that: (1) it has no offices in Texas; (2) it has no employees in Texas; (3) it has no registered agent in Texas; (4) it has no real or personal property including warehouses in Texas; (4) it is not licensed to do business in Texas; and (5) it does no local advertising in Texas.

In support of their position that general jurisdiction is present in this case, the plaintiffs point to a number of business contacts and statistics regarding the defendant's sales in Texas. The statistics include the fact that over the last six years the defendant has sold and shipped over 5.7 million dollars worth of products to Texas residents. In 1997, it appears that the defendant consummated over 250 business transactions with Texas residents which accounted for approximately $717,000.00 in sales. In addition, the president of Rose testified that over the last four years sales to Texans have account for 3.2% of the defendant's gross sales income. Also, the plaintiffs point to the fact that twice a year the defendant does a direct mailing to Texas residents that have bought products from it in the past. Next, the plaintiffs state that the defendant has bought .2% of its furniture over the last 3 years from Kessler Industries which is located in El Paso. Finally, the plaintiffs direct the Court's attention to the fact that the defendant maintains an Internet Web site that is accessible to approximately 2.2 million Texans.

Although most of the facts cited by both parties were considered in both Perkins and Hall, the presence of the Internet, its role in todays ever changing commercial world, and its affect on jurisdictional considerations deserves separate attention. Use of the Internet by a defendant as a basis for exercising personal jurisdiction is a question of first impression for the Eastern District of Texas as...